'Dangers of the Internet' Resolution Passed By Senate

destinyland writes "Apparently June is national 'Internet is Dangerous' month. The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution urging Americans to 'learn more about the dangers of the Internet.' And what counts as a danger? Disabling censorware, or making friends online if you ever plan to meet them in real life. Its extreme negativity is disappointing. But remember — it passed unanimously. From the tech blorge article: 'It's not just a resolution. A few corporations are actually trying to cash in on this misguided disinformation campaign, including BSafe Online, a Tennessee company which markets a PC filtering software. (I wonder if it's one of the ones that can be disabled by 31% of America's teenagers...) Their CEO has an encouraging message for parents about safety on the internet. "This is a battle they must fight everyday with their children in order to keep pornographers, sexual predators and cyber-bullies at bay." And keeping those pornographers and sexual predators away will cost you a mere $70 a year...'"

Comments

I don't know what's worse

[Pojut]

That there are people and companies out there taking advantage of things like this, or that there are people that are ignorant enough to actually fall for it.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[megamerican]

There is a large market for products that make bad parents think that they are doing a good job at parenting.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[dintech]

Why are we allowing people to pass laws on things they completely don't understand? It seems politicians are even worse than children in their propensity to be manipulated with scare tactics. I guess it's the only language they recognize.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Pojut]

Judging by the way a lot of those products are released, it appears they are being designed and marketed by bad parents as well

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Colin Smith]

10 PRINT "You are a good parent."
20 GOTO 10

What d'ya reckon?

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Yoozer]

You forgot something:

30 PROFIT

Re:I don't know what's worse

[unlametheweak]

The simplest solutions are the easiest to understand. Take a complex problem and start giving your average human being the thousands of variables involved, and explain to them the weight and statistical significance of each of those variables, and they will not be able or willing to try to understand. Even worse, they will more than likely label you as a freak. Give them a simple hard-nosed emotional solution, and they get an immediate neuro-chemical response, their adrenalin rises; it is like a cocaine rush, it is positive reenforcement. Politicians understand this, and they exploit this. They understand this not through the study of psychology, they understand this intuitively.

Unfortunately there are no educational pre-requesites for being a politician. There are only economic pre-requisites. No IQ test necessary. It is an inherent fault of the democratic system, as it is structured at the present time.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Hijacked Public]

Because it would be impossible for the people who pass laws to 'completely understand' every single thing they legislate about.

Here is part 85.6 of the Code of Federal Regulations. It concerns itself with the Interstate movement of pseudorabies vaccinate swine, except swine from qualified negative gene-altered vaccinated herds, not known to be infected with or exposed to pseudorabies. It has 500 words or so and it is the 6th part of a 13 part section specifically about Pseudorabies, all of which is a small part of subchapter that makes up Title 9, which is specifically about Animals and Animal Products and has somewhere around 70 of the previously described parts organized into something like 15 subchapters.

And these are just the Federal regs for animal related adventures. States, municipalities, and whatever else we've organized ourselves into also have regs about animals and animal products. We have a lot of seats to fill in the governmental machine and I doubt we're going to find enough animal experts who will show up on the right day to go over all this stuff.

The idea that legislators or judges or whomever should be experts, or even more familiar than the average person, with a subject in front of them is just not viable. Turn on CSPAN. See if you can watch that crap for 8 hours a day or however long legislative sessions last, and pay attention the whole time. The only reason I can imagine a human being voluntarily subjecting themselves to a lifetime of that would be because they see an opportunity to rob us all blind in the process. And people like that really aren't motivated to understand what a routing table is unless there is a pot of gold at the end of the routing table rainbow and they can't figure another way to get hold of it.

There is a tremendous amount of money to be made by making people afraid. The internet is just one of the many angles on that and we've hired the best professionals money can buy to legislate that fear into existence.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[BoberFett]

I realize full well that there are people out there stupid enough to fall for this. What's disheartening is that all of our senators are in that group.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[TapeCutter]

Figuring out sane answers from rigourous enquiry into esoteric details is supposed to be the job of the public service, and they are supposed to deliver those answers "without fear or favour" - instead we have a system where people like Hansen are harrased by political arse kissers. Perhaps there should be a ban on senior public servants running for political office, maybe we would get a bit more of the "without fear or favour" stuff?

Re:I don't know what's worse

[captainClassLoader]

unlametheweak says:

Give them a simple hard-nosed emotional solution, and they get an immediate neuro-chemical response, their adrenalin rises; it is like a cocaine rush, it is positive reenforcement. Politicians understand this, and they exploit this. They understand this not through the study of psychology, they understand this intuitively.

They also understand that, were they to respond rationally and perhaps not go along with this, their opponent in the next election would have a campaign attack ad that would have the headline "Rep. Joe Rational Refused To Protect Your Child From Internet Porn and Sexual Predators!" Which would go quite a way to putting a dent in Joe Rational's future in the legislature.

FUD for politicians isn't only a weapon they wield against their constituents. It's more frequent use is against other politicians.

Only 70 bucks a year??

[Magycian]

I'd be willing to pay that.. if it actually worked.

The only way to "protect" our kids is to educate them on the real dangers. Waiting until they are 18 so they can be allowed to access the web as they want to is a mistake. Filtering of the internet, other than porn sites, at school is also a mistake. Let them surf away, but put consequences in place when they mess up.

Some 80 year old congress critter, who's never used a computer for more than surfing porn and ordering interns, doesn't know what the dangers out there are. My daughter probably knows more about where not to go than they ever will.

But nanny-states are the wave of the future I guess.

To play devil's advocate...

[beavis88]

Had any of them voted against this resolution, it would have immediately been held up as proof that they loved pedophiles and hated America - and a substantial portion of the electorate would have bought it hook, line, and sinker (just like this resolution). C'mon, you think I'm trolling, but you know I'm right.

The ongoing fear campaign

[TripMaster Monkey]

It's a truly sad state of affairs when the U.S. is so transparently motivated and coerced by fear.

Re:The ongoing fear campaign

[Lumpy]

No you are way off.

It is truly sad that America is fine with seeing a human being ground to bits alive in a meat grinder or other horrific violence acts but freaks out and starts screaming if a child sees a breast.

If a child it taught to be freaked out about nudity it teaches them to hate themselves and their sexuality as well as causes a crap load of social and mental problems in them as an adult. It was proven that puritan lifestyle is detrimental yet idiots in this country force it upon everyone they can.

That is what is truly sad.

Re:The ongoing fear campaign

[ColeonyxOnline]

It is truly sad that America is fine with seeing a human being ground to bits alive in a meat grinder or other horrific violence acts but freaks out and starts screaming if a child sees a breast.

And they should freak out, specially since the "show" in which the breast appeared was not rated TV-14.

The problem here has nothing to do with the wardrobe malfunction. It has to do with parents wanting a cheap babysitter on the Internet. They already get free child care from the state on the schools, on TV, now they want the same thing out of the Internet, but unlike the schools and TV, there is not way to regulate the Net in order to achieve that without taking everyone's rights away.

The problem here is, the Internet is not a place for kids to stay alone. If a parent cannot supervise his kid, he should not allow the kid to use it.

These people govern for _all_ , not just techies

[tezza]

I'm sorry to point out the obvious, but slashdot is very skilled in technology and the implications compared to the wider populace. The government deals with all peoples of all capabilities. Some are young, some unable and some just uninformed. But they still need some help sometimes.

There are people who need protection, occasionally from themselves. They deserve every opportunity to be informed. Those who need protection:

* Don't read blogs
* Don't shred their bank statements
* Don't read lifehacker, digg, reddit, slashdot
* Don't read mainstream press or Wired
* May believe they are protected by "Guardian Angels", karma, astral-projections and generally need help with everything
* Native communities who don't have a mainstream existence.
* The list goes on.

But the internet can be a place for bad people to take advantage of others. Why pretend people should not be informed that it can be perverted that way??

Corruption through encouraging stupid people.

[Futurepower(R)]

One way those who want corruption in government achieve their goals is finding ways to prevent intelligent people from being elected, and helping un-intelligent people be elected.

We are seeing now the effects of years of effort by the forces of corruption. The people who are supposed to be leading our country are ignorant and mentally weak, and don't even hire smart people.

This resolution says, "We in the senate are stupid, and we think you are even more stupid, because we think we can manipulate you to get votes."

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[frogstar_robot]

I'll stand this on it's head: Why should the technically competent or even just those with a lick of common sense be penalized for the actions of the stupid?

Just Remember

[angrist]

The "Three Rules of the Internet"

1) Every guy is ... some dude.
2) Everyone claiming to be a woman is ... some dude
3) Everyone claiming to be a small child is ... an FBI agent

Counter with a positive campaign

[syousef]

How about we counter with a positive campaign highlighting everything good about the net.

In no particular order
1) Information at the tip of your fingers. From rare medical problems to gossip about soap stars it's all at your fingertips
2) Positive for the economy.
3) Broadens your horizons
4) Meet and connect with people you'd never otherwise be able to
5) Develop your writing and arguing skills
6) Find people with common intests
7) Scientific collaboration and data transfer on a scale never before possible
8) Avoid queues by taking advantage of electronic payment

The net is great. If idiots want to scare monger, sane people should counter.

It is actually Senate Resolution 205, not 207

[acvh]

and if this is what they're doing in Washington while Iraq burns it's time for the revolution.

Re:It is actually Senate Resolution 205, not 207

[Targon]

It will take another 15 to 20 years before the people in this country are ready to fight for the freedoms that this country was founded on. The people are happy enough NOT to fight, but at the rate things are going, it will take a bit longer.

We see illegal immigrants getting more services(including health care that they never plan to pay the bill for) than those who were born here and have been paying taxes and generally following the rules. We see a continual degradation of our rights to privacy while protection goes out the window. We see no fundamental changes to the education system that would really help solve the problems. We also see more of a focus on helping those in other countries than in helping the lower and middle class citizens improve their lives(which would help the economy more than giving 2 billion dollars to oil companies).

So, they focus on stupid resolutions about the Internet, because they really have no clue about how to fix the REAL problems in this country.

Innoculation?

[vigmeister]

I'd say a dangerous web is vital to those of us who learnt things the hard way. I am not uber-1337, but I learnt from experience that that downloading cracks leads you to pages with naked chicks on them and then 2 weeks later your computer slows down. I learnt to google (actually it was megaspider back then) for stuff as a means to find reliable information rather than blindly believe things people say online. To some extent, giving a kid an unrestricted broadband connection and letting him learn from his/her mistakes is the best way to make a good netizen. However, this ought to be accompanied by some tools & words of wisdom for younger kids like "Use wikipedia to verify stuff", "It's easy for you to lie on the internet" etc...

Maybe I am just wrong about this issue, but I think I was helped in becoming a good netizen by my personal sense of morality and my parents inability to understand what a computer was for and their consequent rejection of the pipes.

Cheers!

Re:Cyber Bullying...

[Broken scope]

Where I came from waiting for the parents to get involved got the victim in suspension then got him beat up again the day he got out.

Where I came from waiting for the adults to get involved got someones face smashed into a locker. It's not cheap to replace teeth sometimes.

That was only in middle school.

After a while you start to realize that you get the same punishment for fighting back that you got for being a punching bag.

Then again this was a predominantly white middle class suburban area. Parents don't give a fuck till there little angel is in trouble, then they get involved just long enough to scream how their angel wouldn't do a thing.

Re:Its only about money

[cno3]

Won't somebody please think of the profit margins?

I was raped by tubes

[StealthyRoid]

So, this one day, I'm just chillin on my laptop, like usual, and I open up some new fangled thing called a bloog? a blorg? Whatever. Anyway, so I open up this bloogleborg, and TUBES LEPT OUT OF MY COMPUTER AND SODOMIZED ME .

This is serious business people. I had a friend get his house robbed by an Internet that one of his friends sent him. The dangers of the internet are no laughing matter, I know from experience!

The above may have actually been a quote from the debate (if there was any) leading up to this senseless resolution. It kind of shows what happens when you let a bunch of people who formed their ideas about how the world works under the Eisenhower administration run everything 50 years later, and it's damn depressing. The outcome is the same as it would be if you let your grandma's nursing home bridge group make InnerTubes (tm) policy for the country. Of course, it's also the natural outcome of letting a government become so large and expansive that it's willing to make vast pronouncements from on high about things that it knows absolutely nothing about, because, well, it's FOR THE CHIRREN!!!!

Are there dangers associated with the Internet? Of course there are. Life is dangerous. You go outside, you can be hit by a car. You stay inside, a meteor could come crashing down on you. Eat some food, could be poison! There are always risks. The way to NOT get screwed by cars/meteors/poison/interwebz is not to scream about how the things themselves are dangerous, because that's silly. Cars and houses and sidewalks and computers and guns (that's right, guns) are all things that will cause no harm when you a.) know how to use them, and b.) aren't stupid about it. Yes, you should not let your children go to www.wantsomecandylittleboy.com . You should also not step on the accelerator in the middle of a traffic jam.

I don't even know why I need to explain this. Is this the end time?

$70 a year!?

[2008]

That's almost as much as I spend on pornography!

Parents need to get involved

[pilbender]

The internet is a dangerous place. But most people I've met don't realize that the internet is adult space and children shouldn't be allowed to play there without adult supervision and involvement. I've talked to so many parents who want to do something about it but don't understand it.

We raised a teenage daughter through the uncensored, budding internet. My wife and I were on her like hawks. Same rules apply to the internet as other facets of life like don't talk to strangers, don't tell people where you live, don't play in the same places as criminals, etc. I tell all those parents that their children have no privacy as long as you are responsible for their actions and you don't have to understand all that they are doing, but you can get involved and watch them. Imagine that! Supervising your kids and getting involved. I know it's a revolutionary concept but some parents do it.

The biggest problem is education. This is a common theme with new technology or other new social issues. I, for one, would like spend some time conducting free education seminars at places like the public library to take some of the mystery out of the internet and computers in general for people. Congress is comprised of people who don't know anything about the computers, computer security or the internet and they are pandering to voters who are largely comprised of the same thinking people.

The way to beat this downward spiral is education and enlightenment. We, as the more knowledgeable members of the internet community, need to do everything we can to help communicate, educate and reach out. This is a call to arms!

So as long as we aren't stepping up to the plate or doing enough about the situation, we will continue to be frustrated by these issues.

The process of enlightenment is painful. Don't expect it to come easily. It's going to take hard work and diligence.

Re:Cyber Bullying...

[TheRaven64]

A lot of the problem is that (here in the UK, at least) the term 'bullying' has been expanded to mean 'any behaviour that makes the victim feel uncomfortable.' There are some situations in which 'bullying' should simply be dealt with by the 'victim.' Others are beyond the ability of a child to handle, and need intervention. Some of my parents' contemporaries were expected to deal with the kind of bullying on their own that really should have been handled by the school or some other adult authority. Some of mine were able to run to teachers and have them intervene for incredibly minor things; a seven year old being told that there was a monster in the toilets by some eight year olds was classed as 'bullying' at my school.

If you coddle children too much, then they won't grow up at all. I don't want to live in a society where 'run to authority' is the solution to any form of mildly antisocial behaviour any more than I want to live in one where vigilante action is the response to any criminal act.

The net is dangerous!!!

[mulvane]

I met my wife online and my wallet has been terrorized ever since!

Bullshit!

[MrZaius]

Barring the stats filled preamble, which likewise never really defines "dangers", here is the entire text of the resolution:

Resolved, That the Senate--
                        (1) designates June 2007 as `National Internet Safety Month';
                        (2) recognizes that National Internet Safety Month provides the citizens of the United States with an opportunity to learn more about--
                                    (A) the dangers of the Internet; and
                                    (B) the importance of being safe and responsible online;
                        (3) commends and recognizes national and community organizations for--
                                    (A) promoting awareness of the dangers of the Internet; and
                                    (B) providing information and training that develops critical thinking and decision-making skills that are needed to use the Internet safely; and
                        (4) calls on Internet safety organizations, law enforcement, educators, community leaders, parents, and volunteers to increase their efforts to raise the level of awareness for the need for online safety in the United States.

Yes, it's rather pointless, but it's not a "Da intertubez strangled my granddaughter" resolution, either. There's nothing terribly alarming going on this time.

Re:The worst danger of all:

[mrogers]

Sorry I can't make it, but I'll delete some e-books if that will help. Just email them to me.

Re:Its only about money

[SighKoPath]

What exactly are parents supposed to do? Anytime their kids go online, to sit there, right next to them, for the entire time, watching them?

No. It means have the computer in a common area of the house, preferably one where it is easy for a parent to wander by and see what's going on. Do not allow the kid to access the computer when you're not at home or asleep - can easily be done through router configuration or a password on the computer. Talk to the kid about what he/she does online. Discuss the dangers of the internet with them.

There are also some more technical things that can be done with some open source projects, but I would not expect most parents to be able to do these - for example, monitor computer activity remotely using VNC.

Re:Its only about money

[Ash Vince]

I know it sounds a bit impractical, but it is the only sure fire solution.

My parents tried many methods to stop me using a PC and modem when they were not around, I foiled all of them. DrWatson startup log was too easy, the keyboard lock could be picked easily, BIOS passwords could be seen by watching what keys they pressed when entering it. This did however give me real world skills I have found useful ever since. Much better than the useless cack I was supposed to be learning in school at the time.

A more practical solution though might be to just make sure the only internet PC in the house is in a very public part of the house where the kid has no privacy. If they want privacy, they can go to their room, just not with a PC.

Re:Its only about money

[Yoozer]

Every router on the market has connection logging functionality, along with blacklists, whitelists, and password-protected access. It's all the tools you need to keep your kid from seeing what you don't want them to see, provided you're willing to spend the time to set things up.

I've highlighted the important and difficult terms. Your intended audience will not have a clue. I repeat - they will not have a clue. All they know is that the little black box provides 'm with Internet and E-mail and Youtube and Google.

Regardless of the time spent, people generally will feel stupid and incompetent if they have to mess with this, especially seeing that most routers are cheap and have abysmal interfaces to work with. At best they'll know power cycling is preferable to running around screaming that the internet has been broken. I recommend doing a few jobs of tech support for your family.

Plus, it'll be useless, because a router can be reset with a paperclip. Even less work than trying to get around NetNanny or what the protection software du jour is.

Overreact Much?

[bcharr2]

Why does the mere mention of the internet as a "dangerous place" stir up so much angst from the slashdot crowd? News flash! From having their computer hijacked for a bot-net, their credit card info stolen, or their child lured into a real life meeting with a sexual predator, the internet IS a dangerous place. When entering (or connecting to) it, people should be cautious, aware, and on their guard.

So what, you're faulting parents for even making the attempt to keep their children safe while surfing the net? Does parental vigilance somehow threaten you?

My oldest is currently headed into 2nd grade this fall. He already uses the computer a great deal for homework, and it is sometimes (oftentimes) challenging to safeguard him on the internet from things that are simply inappropriate for a 7 YEAR OLD. Personally I welcome any help I can get in this battle. We keep our computer in the living room so we can keep an eye on what he is looking at. Can we 100% monitor what he is looking at? No, we have other children who sometimes fall or require attention or simply need a diaper change. Sometimes the phone rings and you have to pick it up. Things happen to distract you. Would I consider BSafe as a solo solution for guarding him? Absolutely not. But it may play a part in our overall solution.

I guess what I fail to understand is why slashdotters are so reactionary to such stories. I would think as advocates of "freedom" everyone here would be all for services such as BSafe, because the choices here are to either protect your child to a reasonable level, or to simply pull the plug and declare that my children cannot use the internet because the risks are to prevalent.

Personally I would prefer to allow my children as much freedom as possible, and services that help me protect my children, while not perfect, certainly help me to do that.

Re:Its only about money

[unlametheweak]

If my understanding of the American school system is correct, then that would probably be the only form of sex education a lot of American kids get (notwithstanding the pro-abstinence education).